ERIC APPERMAN VS. VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF WESTFIELD(DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-5446-15T3

Phyllis Apperman, an employee of Visiting Nurse Association, died in a 2003 work-related motor vehicle accident; insurer NJM admitted liability.
Survivors: husband Eric and adult son Harold, who was adjudicated incapacitated in 1988 and was 34 at the time of the accident.
Eric filed for dependency benefits for himself and Harold; parties reached a 2007 settlement providing Harold $400/week for 450 weeks "and continuing as long as he remains incompetent." The compensation judge approved the settlement with an addendum referencing N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(b) et seq.
NJM stopped payments after 450 weeks in October 2013 and refused further benefits; Eric sought to enforce the settlement to compel continued payments beyond 450 weeks.
The compensation judge denied enforcement, holding N.J.S.A. 34:15-13 limits dependency benefits for adult dependents to 450 weeks; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an incapacitated adult dependent is entitled to dependency benefits beyond 450 weeks under N.J.S.A. 34:15-13	Apperman: statute’s phrase "full compensation period" and subsection (i) imply lifetime benefits for incapacitated adults; settlement intended to secure lifetime support	NJM: statute caps dependency for non-minor dependents at 450 weeks; reference to other statute was a legal mistake	Held: Statute unambiguously limits adult dependent benefits to 450 weeks; judge lacked authority to enforce settlement beyond statutory limit

Renner v. AT&T, 218 N.J. 435 (standard of review for compensation judge factual findings)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (deference not owed to legal interpretation)
Oberhand v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 193 N.J. 558 (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
Cty. of Bergen Emp. Benefit Plan v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 412 N.J. Super. 126 (construe statute in context of entire statutory scheme)
Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (plain meaning controls when statute is unambiguous)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187 (court must construe statute as written)
Wood v. Jackson Twp., 383 N.J. Super. 250 (liberal construction of Workers’ Compensation Act constrained by plain meaning and legislative purpose)
Connolly v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 317 N.J. Super. 315 (Workers’ Compensation Division is a statutory tribunal with limited jurisdiction)
Bey v. Truss Sys., Inc., 360 N.J. Super. 324 (tribunal cannot expand statutory jurisdiction by consent)
Lynch v. Newark, 43 N.J. Super. 546 (no equity jurisdiction to alter statutory limits)
Williams v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 449 N.J. Super. 559 (de novo review for legal interpretation in compensation matters)